What is the meaning behind existence, in your view?

[quatona]

All of the qualities of the 3D object cannot exist in a 2D world.

I think you meant to say "Not all of the qualities ...can exist...".
Anyway, since you introduced "non-existence" into the discussion, and in the further course of the discussion this "non-existence" turns out to be the word you use for something that you think exist and has properties and qualities, I am having problems following your train of thought.

I think what I'm trying to say is, at least from my early Buddhist viewpoint, is that to the everyday occupants of this reality (everything we as regular men and women understand as "reality") do not value or can give meaning to existence beyond this reality. Things outside of the five natural senses are not deemed to have value or any meaningful existence.

Well, I see absolutely no reason to assume there´s a reality "beyond this reality", to begin with.

Whatever. I must say I find your terminology pretty confusing and inconsistent. Which makes it hard for me to understand your premises. E.g. the meaning in which you use the word "existence" seems to be constantly changing. It was not until most recently that you started using it as a synonym for "this our reality" (as opposed to other hypothetically existing realities).

 

[ananda]

I think you meant to say "Not all of the qualities ...can exist...".
Anyway, since you introduced "non-existence" into the discussion, and in the further course of the discussion this "non-existence" turns out to be the word you use for something that you think exist and has properties and qualities, I am having problems following your train of thought.

Well, I see absolutely no reason to assume there´s a reality "beyond this reality", to begin with.

Whatever. I must say I find your terminology pretty confusing and inconsistent. Which makes it hard for me to understand your premises. E.g. the meaning in which you use the word "existence" seems to be constantly changing. It was not until most recently that you started using it as a synonym for "this our reality" (as opposed to other hypothetically existing realities).

Sorry. It's admittedly a difficult concept for me to describe. Maybe this will help:

As I understand it, nibbana is described by the Buddha as neither existence nor non-existence; it is neither annihilation nor non-annihilation.

Let me use a metaphor to explain what I believe the Buddha was trying to convey. Imagine a 2D world with 2D inhabitants. They cannot perceive all of the qualities of the 3D world, nor understand the nature of the 3D world without transcending their 2D world, entering into the 3D world, and knowing the 3D world directly for themselves.

Imagine a 2D being who has awakened to know and understand the 3D world. Imagine that awakened being then attempts his best to describe the 3D world to his 2D friends. He cannot adequately do so, because of the limitations of the 2D language and that world's understanding of "reality". At best, the awakened one can only use similies; he realizes that the best he can do is to describe the path which leads to the 3D world, so his friends can (hopefully) experience it for themselves.

Until the awakened one's friends tread the path and taste the other world for themselves, they cannot understand the nature of its existence. 3D objects do not exist (in relationship to the 2D world, their perspective), nor is it non-existence (3D objects exist on a different level of reality).

Those 2D beings who have awakened to the 3D reality now understand the futility and limitations of of 2D life. Ascending into the 3D world, they no longer exist as 2D beings, nor do they non-exist (since they now exist as 3D). They are neither annihilated (as they exist as 3D), nor are they non-annihilated (they no longer exist in 2D).

I believe that, in the same way, nibbana is neither existence nor non-existence, neither annihilation nor non-annihilation.​

 

[1213]

What is the meaning behind existence, in your view?

Love.

 

[ananda]

Love.

Is love the meaning .. or the purpose?

 

[quatona]

Sorry. It's admittedly a difficult concept for me to describe. Maybe this will help:

As I understand it, nibbana is described by the Buddha as neither existence nor non-existence; it is neither annihilation nor non-annihilation.

Let me use a metaphor to explain what I believe the Buddha was trying to convey. Imagine a 2D world with 2D inhabitants. They cannot perceive all of the qualities of the 3D world, nor understand the nature of the 3D world without transcending their 2D world, entering into the 3D world, and knowing the 3D world directly for themselves.

Imagine a 2D being who has awakened to know and understand the 3D world. Imagine that awakened being then attempts his best to describe the 3D world to his 2D friends. He cannot adequately do so, because of the limitations of the 2D language and that world's understanding of "reality". At best, the awakened one can only use similies; he realizes that the best he can do is to describe the path which leads to the 3D world, so his friends can (hopefully) experience it for themselves.

Until the awakened one's friends tread the path and taste the other world for themselves, they cannot understand the nature of its existence. 3D objects do not exist (in relationship to the 2D world, their perspective), nor is it non-existence (3D objects exist on a different level of reality).

Those 2D beings who have awakened to the 3D reality now understand the futility and limitations of of 2D life. Ascending into the 3D world, they no longer exist as 2D beings, nor do they non-exist (since they now exist as 3D). They are neither annihilated (as they exist as 3D), nor are they non-annihilated (they no longer exist in 2D).

I believe that, in the same way, nibbana is neither existence nor non-existence, neither annihilation nor non-annihilation.​

Thanks for expanding on your ideas.
Please don´t take it personally, but I have problems perceiving illogicalities as deep. What you are describing is a transformation, and this must be described as "non-annihilation" and the result must be described as "existence". There is no reason whatsoever not to. So the entire neither A nor non-A stuff adds just noise, in my opinion.

Even though you have told me that like to let your thoughts wander, I must confess that I tend to be an extremely focussed guy. So I am still stuck with the idea that your responses to my response to your initial question must have some sort of relevance for the topic.
Thus, I am wondering: What implications does your above described hypothesis about different worlds have on the "meaning behind existence"?

 

[ananda]

Thanks for expanding on your ideas.
Please don´t take it personally, but I have problems perceiving illogicalities as deep. What you are describing is a transformation, and this must be described as "non-annihilation" and the result must be described as "existence". There is no reason whatsoever not to. So the entire neither A nor non-A stuff adds just noise, in my opinion.

I agree, it is a form of existence ... IMO it's just not a type of existence that we have knowledge of in our reality.

Even though you have told me that like to let your thoughts wander, I must confess that I tend to be an extremely focussed guy. So I am still stuck with the idea that your responses to my response to your initial question must have some sort of relevance for the topic.
Thus, I am wondering: What implications does your above described hypothesis about different worlds have on the "meaning behind existence"?

I think that the meaning behind our current existence is that we are called to put behind us our current existence and its associated aspects (thought, feelings, five natural senses, self, etc.) in order to embrace the highest existence.

 

[Davian]

skateboarding. Just ak the Mutt.

Crazy. Must be done with wires or sumtin'.

 

[quatona]

I agree, it is a form of existence ...

So the "meaning behind existence" cannot be found there.

IMO it's just not a type of existence that we have knowledge of in our reality.

And yet your worldview is centered around your ideas what our "type of existence" means from the (unknowable) perspective of that "type of existence".

I think that the meaning behind our current existence

Hang on...so when you asked "What is the meaning behind existence" you actually meant to ask "What is the meaning behind our current existence?" (a question loaded with the silent premise that there are other "types of existence")?

is that we are called to put behind us our current existence and its associated aspects (thought, feelings, five natural senses, self, etc.) in order to embrace the highest existence.

1. Is that just a wild guess? Or do you actually feel that we can know something about that which you have said above "we have no knowledge of"?
2. You just asked this question to another poster, and I think it applies to your idea, as well: "Is this the meaning or the purpose?"
3. "Called" by whom? How do you hear this call when - as you submitted earlier - it can´t exist in "our type of existence"?
4. I understand that to some people it´s comforting or even necessary to assume an externally existing purpose/meaning to one´s existence. Whereas - when presented such hypotheticals - I am always tempted to ask: And what about the meaning behind/purpose of this "highest existence"?

 

[ananda]

So the "meaning behind existence" cannot be found there. And yet your worldview is centered around your ideas what our "type of existence" means from the (unknowable) perspective of that "type of existence". Hang on...so when you asked "What is the meaning behind existence" you actually meant to ask "What is the meaning behind our current existence?" (a question loaded with the silent premise that there are other "types of existence")?
Yes, when I stated "existence" in my OP, I meant "this existence" as most people would understand it to mean.

1. Is that just a wild guess? Or do you actually feel that we can know something about that which you have said above "we have no knowledge of"? I don't recall stating "we have no knowledge of", please point me to my post where I wrote that?
2. You just asked this question to another poster, and I think it applies to your idea, as well: "Is this the meaning or the purpose?" Both, IMO.
3. "Called" by whom? How do you hear this call when - as you submitted earlier - it can´t exist in "our type of existence"? I don't know. Who or what calls us to stick to the Earth?
4. I understand that to some people it´s comforting or even necessary to assume an externally existing purpose/meaning to one´s existence. Whereas - when presented such hypotheticals - I am always tempted to ask: And what about the meaning behind/purpose of this "highest existence"?

I don't know the purpose of the highest existence, I haven't been there yet

 

[quatona]

Yes, when I stated "existence" in my OP, I meant "this existence" as most people would understand it to mean.

If you use such abstract terms, you better be careful to be precise in clarifying what you mean.

I don't recall stating "we have no knowledge of", please point me to my post where I wrote that?

In the very post I responded to. Post #126 ("I agree, it is a form of existence ... IMO it's just not a type of existence that we have knowledge of in our reality.")

Both, IMO.

Personally, I can´t make sense of the term "meaning" without a "...to".

I don't know. Who or what calls us to stick to the Earth?

Sorry, I don´t understand this question, and I don´t understand how it´s an answer to my question.

I don't know the purpose of the highest existence, I haven't been there yet

So you are positing that the purpose of an existence exists within that "type of existence"?
I don´t understand, then, why you are postulating a "higher existence" so to find meaning behind our "form of existence".

 

[pastor marty]

?

Good question,assuming all that is (or isn't) has a sentient creator (which any ordered ,time existing creation/cosmos must have) Since math does/must exist outside of time/space/eternity; it follows that existance exists to exist. The fomula is as incomprehensible to to all mortal sapients as a ford truck motor to an ant. {hope that doesn't confuse U more }

 

[pastor marty]

Suffering is temporary too. It ceases when joy emerges.

If all life is suffering,why is eating an 'Eskimo-pie' such a "YUM-YUM' moment ??

 

[pastor marty]

If you use such abstract terms, you better be careful to be precise in clarifying what you mean.

In the very post I responded to. Post #126 ("I agree, it is a form of existence ... IMO it's just not a type of existence that we have knowledge of in our reality.") Personally, I can´t make sense of the term "meaning" without a "...to".

Sorry, I don´t understand this question, and I don´t understand how it´s an answer to my question.


So you are positing that the purpose of an existence exists within that "type of existence"?
I don´t understand, then, why you are postulating a "higher existence" so to find meaning behind our "form of existence".

Ya'll quit pickin' on the kid. He obviously got a wiff of that old "I'm gonna die {sooner or later} & he wants/needs answers/assurances/ a friend/mentor.. {don't we all ??}

 

[pastor marty]

The purpose of our existence is to fellowship with God.

AMEN/right-on/perfect !!

 

[pastor marty]

Aristotle would like U !

 

[ananda]

If you use such abstract terms, you better be careful to be precise in clarifying what you mean.

Like I said, I like to explore, in an open-ended fashion, usually

In the very post I responded to. Post #126 ("I agree, it is a form of existence ... IMO it's just not a type of existence that we have knowledge of in our reality.")

To clarify: No, I don't have direct knowledge of this existence, but I think that is the goal, imo.

Personally, I can´t make sense of the term "meaning" without a "...to".

You can't make sense of why it is both the meaning and purpose of this existence?

Sorry, I don´t understand this question, and I don´t understand how it´s an answer to my question.

I think the "call" is a law or force, such as the law of gravity. I don't know who defined these laws, they just are.

So you are positing that the purpose of an existence exists within that "type of existence"? I don´t understand, then, why you are postulating a "higher existence" so to find meaning behind our "form of existence".

I see meaning in this existence, and that meaning is IMO to get to the highest existence.

 

[ananda]

Good question,assuming all that is (or isn't) has a sentient creator (which any ordered ,time existing creation/cosmos must have) Since math does/must exist outside of time/space/eternity; it follows that existance exists to exist. The fomula is as incomprehensible to to all mortal sapients as a ford truck motor to an ant. {hope that doesn't confuse U more }

What if an ant could comprehend a motor, and that it is merely the fact that it cannot express it to us in our terms?

 

[quatona]

Like I said, I like to explore, in an open-ended fashion, usually

I see.
As far as I am concerned, it´s not my kind of thing to explore stuff with a poorly defined word as the starting point.

To clarify: No, I don't have direct knowledge of this existence, but I think that is the goal, imo.

Whose goal? How are goals determined?
What prompted you to propose a world as "the goal" - a world that on the other hand you can´t have knowledge of? That strikes me as a pretty wild assumption.

You can't make sense of why it is both the meaning and purpose of this existence?

No, that was not my question. I´ll try to clarify:
1. I don´t seem to understand what, in your use of words, is the difference between a "purpose of" and a "meaning behind". The way you describe your idea, it appears to me that the appropriate and sufficient term is "purpose" or "goal". I don´t know what the term "meaning" might be supposed to add to that.
2. and more generally: "Meaning", in my understanding of the term, requires someone to whom something means something. Same goes for "purpose", btw.

I think the "call" is a law or force, such as the law of gravity. I don't know who defined these laws, they just are.

Unless you are positing a transcendental "meaning behind" or a "purpose of" gravity, as well, I fail to see how that´s even a comparison.

I see meaning in this existence, and that meaning is IMO to get to the highest existence.

Sorry, but to me this sounds like "the meaning I see in this movie is to eventually leave the cinema and move on to other things". That´s, in my understand not a "meaning within".

 

[ananda]

Whose goal? How are goals determined? What prompted you to propose a world as "the goal" - a world that on the other hand you can´t have knowledge of? That strikes me as a pretty wild assumption.

I didn't say that I can't have knowledge of that world, I said I don't have knowledge of that world, at least not in any significant quantity.

No, that was not my question. I´ll try to clarify:
1. I don´t seem to understand what, in your use of words, is the difference between a "purpose of" and a "meaning behind". The way you describe your idea, it appears to me that the appropriate and sufficient term is "purpose" or "goal". I don´t know what the term "meaning" might be supposed to add to that.
2. and more generally: "Meaning", in my understanding of the term, requires someone to whom something means something. Same goes for "purpose", btw.

I see purpose of any particular thing as defined by its creator. I see meaning of the same thing defined by any individual interpreter. The creator of a car has his own purposes for creating the car (profits, aesthetics, etc.). The purchaser can apply his own meaning to his car (freedom, travel, utility, etc.)

Unless you are positing a transcendental "meaning behind" or a "purpose of" gravity, as well, I fail to see how that´s even a comparison.

I see all natural "laws" as transcendent, meant to somehow point us to the highest realities in their own ways.

Sorry, but to me this sounds like "the meaning I see in this movie is to eventually leave the cinema and move on to other things". That´s, in my understand not a "meaning within".

I would perceive that the meaning of watching a movie may be to enjoy and learn from the movie, and then to leave the movie to apply the lessons learned in some way to the outside world.

 

[pastor marty]

Is love the meaning .. or the purpose?

Who cares ?? "Love is all we need !" beatles 66